Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong 1) The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of organizing and managing human activity, specifically tracking the shelf life and expiration of food items and notifying users when items have expired. This is a fundamental economic or business practice and a method of organizing human activity. Further, the abstract idea is directed to managing food items in a refrigerator, which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the abstract idea pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices; and/or (ii) commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
(Step 2A -prong 2) Claim 1-6 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 6 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application: a food tracking device; a refrigerator; a plurality of scanners (which includes a housing, an adhesive layer, a bar code reader, a power button); an extrinsic communication network; and a plurality of personal electronic devices. The additional elements recited in independent claims 1 and 6 merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite generic computer and hardware components (scanners, barcode readers, processors, transmitters, power supplies, adhesive layers, and personal electronic devices) performing their conventional functions to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements, such as the specific arrangement of the adhesive layer, barcode reader, and power button, represent routine and conventional design choices for mounting and operating electronic devices and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field, nor do they effect a transformation or otherwise add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) Claims 1 and 6 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional
elements discussed above do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The recited hardware components and their arrangement are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of electronic devices and inventory management systems. The claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself..
Dependent claims 2-5 further describe the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. These claims do not include additional elements to perform their respective functions of scanning, broadcasting, receiving, storing, tracking, generating, loading, performing, and replacing beyond the technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as disclosed in independent claims 1 and 6 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, these dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (US 2019/0164117) in view of Lindsay et al. (US 2004/0100380), and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 7,060,953).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Wallace teaches a food item tracking device for tracking the shelf life of food items being
stored in a refrigerator or pantry, said device comprising:
a plurality of scanners (fig.1 RC 110 & ¶ 0059), each of said plurality of scanners being mountable in a respective one of a refrigerator and a pantry (fig.1, pantry 106) wherein each of said plurality of scanners is configured to scan a barcode of a food item being removed from said refrigerator or said pantry (pantry 106 may include one or more sensors that can scan food items 108 stored within it, detect an amount of mass associated with one or more food items 108, ¶ 0018), each of said plurality of scanners having a communication unit being in remote communication with an extrinsic communication network thereby facilitating each of said scanners to broadcast data to said extrinsic communication network wherein each of said scanners is configured to broadcast the shelf life of the food item to said extrinsic communication network (food item data 114 may be acquired by scanning food items 108 by reading sensor data from one or more sensors 110, ¶ 0020. Also, Pantry 106 monitors sensor data from sensors 110 and transmit (by way of communication network) the sensor data to user computing device 102);
a plurality of personal electronic devices (fig.1, user computing device 102), each of said plurality of personal electronic devices being in remote communication with said extrinsic communication network such that each of said plurality of personal electronic devices receives data from said extrinsic communication network (WiFi-based communication, Bluetooth, or any suitable wired or wireless communications protocol that enables the respective computing device to interface with the other computing devices ¶ 0066) wherein each of said personal electronic devices is configured to receive the identity and the shelf life of the food item scanned by a respective scanner (stored account information 118 may include information corresponding to food items 108 purchased by users 194 (e.g., names of food items108, brands of food items 108, number of units of food items 108, quantity of food items 108, expiration dates, dates that food items 108 were purchased, nutrition information, etc. ¶ 0021 & ¶ 0033), each of said plurality of personal electronic devices storing an analysis program (food item data 114 entered into a smart pantry application 112 via user computing device 102, ¶ 0020) and a database (data store 116, ¶ 0033) which comprises data received from said extrinsic communication network wherein each of said plurality of personal electronic devices is configured to store a list of all of the food items that are stored in said refrigerator and said pantry and the shelf life of each of the food items, said analysis program associated with each of said plurality of personal electronic devices analyzing data received from said extrinsic communication network wherein each of said plurality of personal electronic devices is configured to track the shelf life of each of the food items that are stored in said refrigerator and said pantry, said analysis program associated with each of said plurality of personal electronic devices generating an alert when said analysis program associated with each of said plurality of personal electronic devices determines that a shelf life has expired wherein said plurality of personal electronic devices is configured to notify a user that a food item has expired (a smart pantry application 112 may provide notification that indicate food item 108 is about to expire. For example, when data store 116 indicates that food item 108 is about to expire, a smart pantry application 112 may present a user 104 with a visual indication, message, that the food item 108 is about to expire ¶ 0033).
A bar code reader being integrated into said bottom wall of said housing such that said bar code reader faces away from said adhesive layer wherein said bar code reader is configured to emit infra-red light away from said scanner for reading a bar code (fig.1 RC 110 & ¶ 0059).
A power button being movably integrated into said housing, said power button being positioned on a face of said housing perpendicular to said top wall and said bottom wall wherein said power button is configured for being pressed into said housing facilitated by applying pressure to an opposite side of said housing from said power button (¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
While Wallace teaches a scanner that provides recommendations or notifications to a pantry system, and the pantry system provides the recommendations or notifications to a user computing device (Wallace ¶ 0056 & ¶ 0059), Wallace does not appear to explicitly teach that a scanner is to broadcast data to the extrinsic communication network and personal electronic devices receives the data from said extrinsic communication network.
However, Lindsay teaches this where a scanner 16 is an internet accessible wireless device (Lindsay ¶ 0056), the scanner may be integrated with a computer system (Lindsay ¶ 0010).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the teachings of Lindsay into the disclosure of Wallace, for the advantage of tracking the stored food products and perform any number of associated functions (Lindsay ¶ 0010). Therefore, in view of the above evidence, the combination of Wallace in view of Lindsay meets the scope of the limitations as currently claimed.
Wallace teaches scanners comprising a housing having a top wall and a bottom wall (fig.1 RC 110).
Also, Wallace does not explicitly teach an adhesive layer applied to top wall and a protective sheet being removably applied to an exposed surface of said adhesive layer.
However, Ishikawa teaches a reader 12 which is combined with a plastic molding and is covered with a plastic film and applying adhesive 117 such as an anisotropic and conductive adhesive (Ishikawa Col 9 Lns 39-44 & Col 14 Lns 48-55)
Nonetheless, using adhesive to mount a scanner on a refrigerator is an obvious matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, given the smooth and non-porous surface of most refrigerator exteriors. Adhesives provide a non-invasive, reliable method of attachment without requiring drilling or hardware, which could damage the appliance or compromise insulation. Moreover, adhesive mounting is well-known and commonly used technique in consumer electronics and appliance accessories, making its application in this context routine and predictable.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa into the disclosure of Wallace, for the advantage of providing a non-invasive, reliable method of attachment without requiring drilling or hardware, which could damage the appliance or compromise insulation.
Regarding Claim 3: Wallace in view of Lindsay teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein each of said plurality of scanners includes: a processor being integrated into said housing; said bar code reader being electrically coupled to said processor (Wallace fig.1 RC 110 & ¶ 0059).
Regarding Claim 4: Wallace in view of Lindsay teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein each of said scanners includes a transmitter being integrated into said housing such that said transmitter defines said communication unit, said transmitter being electrically coupled to said processor, said transmitter being in wireless communication with said extrinsic communication network, said transmitter receiving data from said bar code reader thereby facilitating said transmitter to broadcast said data to said extrinsic communication network (Wallace ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
Note: a scanner obviously requires a processor/transmitter to process data and provide it to the pantry system or other computing systems.
Regarding Claim 5: Wallace in view of Lindsay teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein each of said scanners includes a power supply being integrated into said housing, said power supply being electrically coupled to said processor, said power supply comprising: a battery being positioned within said housing, said battery being electrically coupled to said processor; said power button being electrically coupled to said processor for actuating and de-actuating said processor when said power button is depressed (Wallace ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
Note: a portable scanner obviously requires a battery as a power source.
Regarding Claim 6: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-5. Claims 1-5 pertains to a food item tracking device having associated instructions corresponding to the method of claim 6. Claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond claims 1-5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, applicant submits that the amended claims pertains to physical structures, particularly as to elements of the invention such as scanners, with defined housing, adhesive, barcode reader, and power button, and that the claims limitations include but are significantly more than a mere abstract idea.
In response to a) examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The mere inclusion of generic physical components (such as a scanner, adhesive, barcode reader, and power button) does not automatically render the claims patent-eligible if the underlying focus of the claims remains an abstract idea (e.g., organizing human activity, such as inventory management or tracking expiration dates).
The claims, as amended, recite a combination of known hardware elements performing their conventional functions to implement the abstract idea of tracking and alerting for food expiration. The structural limitations, while more detailed, do not appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed arrangement of the adhesive, barcode reader, and power button, while specific, does not appear to provide a technical improvement to the functioning of the device or another technology.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the § 101 rejection.
Regarding 103, applicant submits that the amended claims are to clarify the structure of the invention, specifically the scanners have particular structure and relative positioning of the adhesive, bar code scanner, and power button. These positional relationships and limitations are not disclosed, taught, suggested or contemplated in the prior art on record. Therefore, claim 1 is not obvious in view of the cited references and should be allowed.
In response to b) examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner has carefully considered the amendments and applicant’s arguments. The cited references collectively teach or suggest a food item tracking system with barcode scanners, wireless communication, and mounting means (including adhesive, as taught by Ishikawa). The specific arrangement of the adhesive layer, barcode reader, and power button, as claimed, are viewed as design choices that would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in the context of mounting a scanner to a surface and providing user access to a power button.
Adhesive Layer and Protective Sheet: Ishikawa teaches the use of adhesive and a protective film for mounting electronic devices to surfaces, which is a well-known method for attaching lightweight devices to appliances.
Barcode Reader Placement: The placement of the barcode reader on the bottom wall, facing away from the adhesive, is a logical and predictable arrangement for a device intended to scan items placed below it or in front of it, especially when mounted to a surface.
Power Button Placement: Positioning a power button on a face perpendicular to the mounting surface, and configuring it to be pressed by applying pressure from the opposite side, is a routine design consideration for user accessibility and device ergonomics.
No evidence has been provided that these specific arrangements yield unexpected results or solve a technical problem in a non-obvious way. The examiner maintains that the combination of Wallace, Lindsay, and Ishikawa renders the claimed invention obvious.
Therefore, Wallace in view of Lindsay, and further in view of Ishikawa still meet the scope of the limitations as currently claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627